Thinking About Go

Part 1

Andrew Daly

Introduction and General Thoughts

Go is a game of thought, and thinking about it is almost invariably
productive as well as interesting. Part of the charm of the game, for me
at any rate, is in the theorising that is possible, and the variety of
possible approaches, each with its particular attractions. In this
series of articles I intend to present some of my own pet theories, the
aim being not so much to expound authoritatively, but more to suggest
provocative ideas which may be thought about, talked about, tried out in
games, modified, rejected, or even accepted as being sound. The articles
will be fairly elementary - players of about 15 kyu should not get
lost - but because my aim is more to be original than to be correct
(though naturally I aim at that as well) players much stronger than that
should at least find something to disagree with.

Most thinking about Go is about particular aspects of the game, or
about particular situations, but there are certain ideas which are
absolutely fundamental to every stage of every game: of these ideas the
most important is that of sente. A player has sente when he is not
forced to answer his opponents last move. This means he can direct the
play to whichever part of the board he judges most advantageous. Should
he contrive to make forcing (sente) moves in succession, he can keep
this initiative, to great advantage, as he has control of the direction
the game will take, as well as the considerable local advantages derived
from playing first in each situation. Forcing moves can often be
achieved by threatening the opponents weaknesses - but beware!
- there may be several ways to attack each weakness, or it may be
better to leave the weakness to wreak its toll later in the game. It is
unlikely that such a weakness would be directly defended, as this would
cost sente, so leaving them for later is often a good idea.

One can regard every move as having some locally forcing effect
- that is, a failure to answer it directly will cause some local
loss. Even for gote (the opposite of sente) moves - i.e. those not
answered directly because the local loss is considered to be smaller
than the gain possible elsewhere on the board - this potential
local gain will remain for sometime in the future. One should therefore
try to make this locally forcing effect as great as possible, even when
a sente move is impossible, to leave gains for you to make at the
appropriate time later on.

The opponents weaknesses should therefore be exploited at the right
time to make maximum profit from them. A fairly easy way of making such
profit is by attacking a weak group in the early stages of the game. A
weak group is one that cannot be captured immediately, but has not yet
either two eyes or connection to a safe group. Such a group must make
eyes or run away if it is attacked, and the attacker can nearly always
make profit in either territory or influence from doing so. Weak groups
are fundamental to opening and middle game strategy: Dia 1 shows how
much emphasis professionals place on weak groups, for the recommended
move is one that, though small in itself, makes an opposing group very
weak.

Black 1 is incorrect, although it is the largest move in terms of
territory, as white 2 seizes the vital point. Black should have played
at A, even permitting white B, a very large move.

For maximum effect such attacks should be made with tact, and
sometimes with restraint. The group that is attacked may well survive to
become strong under a direct attack, but If attacked indirectly remain
weak long into the middle game as a heavy burden on all your opponents
schemes.

Two weak groups simultaneously under attack make a golden
opportunity, never to be missed. One of them can frequently be captured
and, for moderately good players, the game is over, as the usual
compensating gains made by the loser of a group have evaporated in the
saving of the other group.

Another fundamental concept is the balance between present and
future gains. A moderate player will usually prefer solid territory to
the outside strength, or thickness, that brings gains in the future.
With increasing tactical skill, however, stones further away from the
immediate skirmish begin to have a greater effect on play, and the
player with nearby thickness can turn the fight to his advantage. This
must not be overdone, of course; a professional has said that Go is the
art of balance. There Is a strong connection between this paragraph and
the preceding ones, for one of the greatest gains from thickness is
freedom from weak groups - all the groups can connect easily to the
outside.

Any successful strategy must, however, depend on good tactics.
Unless stones are used economically but effectively the most
superficially subtle strategy must fail from sheer want of stones.
Handicaps in effect compensate for the weaker players extravagant use
of stones by giving him more to use - the stronger player can
achieve the same effect with fewer stones. The art of thrifty stone
placement is called katachi, meaning form or shape. The secrets of form
are not to be learnt easily, for it is said that one can achieve 3-dan
with this knowledge alone. The only certain way is by long and bitter
experience, for, although master games are a fruitful source of ideas,
these ideas are understood only after trying them out in games for
oneself.

One of the commonest sources of error among moderate players is
unnecessarily over-defining positions, i.e. playing on in one part of
the board until nearly every point of territory has been decided. There
are considerable profits to be made, and deep subtleties to be explored,
by judicious tenuki (playing elsewhere) while the result of a local
battle is still not quite decided. This makes matters difficult for your
opponent to calculate, for even if he plays another stone it may not
finish the situation completely, and meanwhile you have made definite
and certain gains elsewhere on the board. Playing in this way has an
unusual advantage, in that the skill of both players will improve, as
they are both forced to consider more difficult positions. This is
obviously another procedure that should not be overdone, and before
playing tenuki you must have a very clear idea of what your opponent
could gain in the situation you are about to leave.

This last paragraph is another example of an idea that has appeared
twice before in this article, and indeed is fundamental to all good Go.
This is the method of leaving possibilities of gains for future
exploitation. These possibilities are called aji. Leaving and exploiting
aji effectively is the mark of the mature Go player - Dias 2 and 3
are two elementary examples, but this is a quite difficult matter, and
is best learnt from experience. It will not, however, be learnt by a
player who is not on the look-out for opportunities, and who plays each
position to its death before starting on the next. So be alive to your
possibilities!

Black 1 in Dia 2 is a typical short-sighted play, made thinking it
strengthens his territory. In fact, the strengthening is marginal, and
could have been done at any time, whereas White has significantly
reinforced his lower group. Black should have played immediately at 3.

Black needs a play in the corner to be safe, but black 1 in Dia
3a loses the possibility of playing at A in diagram 3b, which may be
very useful later. So Black should play as in that diagram, leaving the
one point gain for later.

This article is from the
British Go Journal
Issue 10[1]
which is one of a series[2] of back issues now available on the web.

Last updated Thu May 04 2017. If you have any comments, please email the webmaster on web-master AT britgo DOT org.